Strong Showing by Bush Puts More Pressure on Democrats

By demonstrating George W. Bush’s political strength, the Republican gains in Tuesday’s midterm elections paradoxically will increase pressure on leading Democrats -- especially those who might run against him in 2004 -- to more sharply criticize and confront the president, analysts in both parties say.

Among dazed Democrats, the most common explanation for their losses was the failure of the party’s congressional leadership to articulate a systematic critique of Bush’s record, particularly on the economy.

That conviction is already increasing the demand among activists for a more comprehensive and combative alternative to the Bush agenda from potential 2004 presidential contenders.

“The people who are going to run for president are going to understand ... you have to have a strategic approach that provides a telling critique of his domestic and economic and international affairs programs,” said John Podesta, former White House chief of staff for President Clinton.

Tuesday’s results infused urgency into the Democratic search for new approaches by underscoring Bush’s continuing strength, particularly in the more culturally conservative states that he won in 2000.

Across the Midwest and the South, Bush appeared to inspire a big turnout of the GOP base. Bush’s influence was -- most dramatic in the South, where Republicans decisively reversed half a decade of modest Democratic gains -- and showed how difficult it will be for Democrats to crack Bush’s stranglehold on the region in 2004.

“A Democrat will have to have extraordinary good luck in 2004 to carry any significant number of Southern states -- and maybe any Southern state,” said Whit Ayres, an Atlanta-based GOP pollster.

No single national trend cut through the disparate results of 34 Senate, 36 gubernatorial and 435 House races. Each party scored successes in states that lean toward the other -- with Republicans, for instance, winning governorships in the Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts and Maryland, and Democrats capturing the governorship in Tennessee and the Senate seat in Arkansas.

But largely, the GOP did best in the places where Bush was already strong. The three Senate seats that Republicans won from Democrats were in Georgia and Missouri -- which Bush won in 2000 -- and in Minnesota, where he significantly improved the GOP showing from 1996 and lost only narrowly to Al Gore. In a runoff election next month, Republicans have a shot at capturing a Democratic Senate seat in Louisiana, another state Bush carried.

Meanwhile, Democrats were almost entirely frustrated in their bids for GOP Senate seats in states Bush won. All of the seven most serious Democratic Senate challengers were running in these states. Among them, the only winner was Mark Pryor, who defeated Republican Sen. Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas.

The results in the South were especially emphatic. Democrats were handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity when four venerable Southern GOP senators -- including Jesse Helms in North Carolina, Strom Thurmond in South Carolina and Phil Gramm in Texas -- decided to retire this year, leaving open seats. But the Republicans won all four contests by resounding margins.

In all, the results reaffirmed the general Republican strength in the South -- and the particular appeal of Bush across the region. In 2000, Bush defeated Gore in every Southern state; based on Tuesday’s results, he would begin the 2004 race as a clear favorite to again sweep the region.

Indeed, the voting reaffirmed one of the central political story lines of the Bush presidency: his extraordinary hold on his base. An election-day voter survey by the GOP polling firm Public Opinion Strategies suggested the Republican gains came more from mobilizing their base than from converting swing voters.

In the survey, independent voters gave a slight edge to Democratic congressional candidates. But GOP candidates won a higher level of support from Republican voters than Democratic candidates did among voters from their party. And Republicans surged to the polls: The survey found that GOP partisans made up a considerably larger share of the electorate Tuesday than they do of the nation overall.

If Bush maintains such a high level of support and enthusiasm among GOP voters, it will be difficult for Democrats to seriously challenge him in all but a handful of the states he won in 2000, even some Democratic analysts agree. “There is no margin of error for the Democrats,” said Chris Lehane, Gore’s chief spokesman in 2000.

The demonstration of Bush’s continuing strength in securing his base will probably increase the concern among Democrats about finding a nominee who can appeal widely to swing voters and swing states. From all points on the ideological spectrum, leading party thinkers agreed that to do so, Democrats will have to chart a new course.

The second-guessing about the party’s message and agenda began so fast after Tuesday’s voting that it might be called pre-criminations.

Liberal voices such as Americans for Democratic Action, and centrists such as the Democratic Leadership Council, quickly unified behind a common complaint that the party’s national leadership -- and many of its individual candidates -- failed to draw sharp enough lines of distinction with Bush, especially on economic issues.

The ADA complained that the party had conceded too much ground to Bush and fallen into the “mushy middle.” DLC leaders complained that the Democrats relied too much on enticing narrow groups of voters with specific programs -- such as a prescription drug plan under Medicare for seniors -- while failing to shape an overall economic message that could attract swing voters.

Senior congressional aides defend their approach, arguing that a national message of opposition to Bush on tax cuts or his tough policy toward Iraq would have been counterproductive because so many of the competitive House and Senate races were in conservative, pro-Bush areas. But many of those making that argument agree the party will have to think bigger to challenge Bush in 2004.

The most immediate effect of this rapidly emerging consensus will be to increase pressure on the likely 2004 presidential contenders to offer bolder ideas and to challenge Bush’s ideas more forcefully.

Two possible contenders -- Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina -- have already called for rolling back Bush’s tax cut; Podesta predicts that “every single person running for president” will have to join them.

Strategists for the prospective 2004 candidates are still trying to sort out who the debacle hurts and helps. The results freed Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D--Mo.) to decide to resign as House minority leader and focus on a probable bid for the presidency -- but the setback also will dim his luster. It also should hurt Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who helped design and resolutely defended the less-confrontational strategy.

Some predict that the desire for a fresh face will encourage a second look at Edwards, whose star has faded a bit in some Democratic quarters in recent months. And the demand for a sharper edge could help Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has shown less reluctance than most to confront Bush.

Several Democrats said it isn’t clear how the losses might affect Gore. Ironically, the former vice president has become so estranged from the Democratic leadership in Washington that he may be immune from the backlash against the strategy those leaders devised for these stunning midterm elections.